Canterbury City Council v Saad [2000] NSWLEC 278

Canterbury City Council v Saad [2000] NSWLEC 278

The Court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the two trees required by condition 40 to be retained were cut down or removed on or about 23 December 1999, so the proceedings filed on 16 June 2000 were within the six month limitation period. Applying Rao v Canterbury City Council, the offence was one of strict liability and the Defendant was criminally responsible because he obtained the development consent, was a co-director of the building company undertaking the development, was engaged in carrying out the approved development, and the development was carried out contrary to condition 40. The failure to tender the attached site plan was not fatal because other evidence proved the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Prosecution for an Offence Against Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, S 125 / Trial After Not Guilty Plea; Judgment on Guilt, With Sentence Stood Over
Outcome
Defendant found guilty of the offence charged; sentence stood over.
Legal Topics
['carrying Out Development Contrary to Condition of Development Consent' 'retention of Trees Required by Development Consent' 'statutory Limitation Period for Summary Proceedings' 'strict Liability Environmental Planning Offence' 'criminal Responsibility for Implementation of Development Consent' 'admissibility of Admissions Obtained Without Caution' 'failure to Tender Attached Site Plan']
['environmental Law' 'planning and Development' 'criminal Law'] ['carrying Out Development Contrary to Condition of Development Consent' 'retention of Trees Required by Development Consent' 'statutory Limitation Period for Summary Proceedings' 'strict Liability Environmental Planning Offence' 'criminal Responsibility for Implementation of Development Consent' 'admissibility of Admissions Obtained Without Caution' 'failure to Tender Attached Site Plan']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Prosecution for an Offence Against Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, S 125 / Trial After Not Guilty Plea; Judgment on Guilt, With Sentence Stood Over

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proceedings were commenced within the six month limitation period prescribed by Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, s 127(5).' 'Whether the Defendant was criminally responsible for carrying out development contrary to condition 40 of the development consent.' 'Whether the Prosecution failed because it did not tender the attached site plan referred to in condition 40.' "Whether the Defendant's telephone admission to Council's landscape architect should be admitted despite no caution being administered."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the two trees required by condition 40 to be retained were cut down or removed on or about 23 December 1999, so the proceedings filed on 16 June 2000 were within the six month limitation period. Applying Rao v Canterbury City Council, the offence was one of strict liability and the Defendant was criminally responsible because he obtained the development consent, was a co-director of the building company undertaking the development, was engaged in carrying out the approved development, and the development was carried out contrary to condition 40. The failure to tender the attached site plan was not fatal because other evidence proved the...

Court Disposition

Defendant found guilty of the offence charged; sentence stood over.

Orders

  • ['The Defendant be found guilty of the offence charged.' "The question of sentence be stood over to a date to be fixed with liberty to restore on three days' notice."]